guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Auron of Neon
3 things 1. I want o know what you think about some of the stuff in GuildWiki:Suggestions because I'd like to start implementing a couple of them. and 2. the acorns thing. I can see why you would feel that it doesn't belong in userspace but I don't know if its location as an orphaned talk is the best place. There have been times when content like that has simply been deleted as an orphaned talk page but it was a useful conversation about content and policy. Perhaps we can implement something in GuildWiki space like... GuildWiki:Non-orphaned talk pages. like we have for images? 3, 1 fame is so ftw. lol —[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 18:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC) :Acorns is linked from GuildWiki:Admin noticeboard/Resolved2 (and via redirect from GuildWiki talk:Don't immediately delete), it's not strictly orphaned. If a talk is relevant, you should always be able to make a link from the page or talk it has affected. --◄mendel► 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC) ::There's a page like acorns you voted to keep, Jedi. Talk:Cracked Armour. It ended up not being an orphan, but the idea is the same. It's for historical reference. -- 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC) :::You don't delete/move talk pages for the hell of it. Talk:Girls on Top has been here for the majority of this wiki's life. Its article was deleted two years ago, but the talk page belongs nowhere except mainspace. Same with acorns. The discussion wasn't mendel's alone, nor did it apply to anything in his userspace, so it definitely doesn't belong there. :::If a talk page has no relevant information, deleting it is fine. But when it has pages of discussion, deletion is usually a bad idea. It doesn't do anything. It's not in anyone's way. They should be able to deal with the talk page existing. :::I wouldn't mind a category tag for the "orphaned" talk pages with historical purpose, but moving them anywhere would be a bad idea. Something like "don't delete this page, it's a discussion preserved for posterity." :::Suggestions page, eh? :::*Notable guilds ::::I'm not against it. The problem most people don't see is how hard finding information for these pages will be. Who's going to track down members of Final Destiny, Treacherous Empire, Idiot Savants, Esoteric Warriors, or any of the korean guilds that dominated back in the day? How will the limited information found be presented? Are the articles going to be up-to-date? Are they going to be unbiased? All these questions would have to be answered before that section even began. :::*Price Guide ::::Don't care either way. It won't hurt anything, as long as the price guides themselves are kept separate from the weapon articles we have now. :::*Guild Builds ::::Goes in userspace. Or on a subpage for a notable guild. Not enough good players to make this viable, most people would be listing their conjure flame barrage rangers. :::*Navigation ::::Just whining. No actual ideas presented to fix the problem. :::*PvP mode ::::More of the same. Needs solid improvements, not general stabbing in the dark. GWW has DPL lists with both pve and pvp skills. It's a bit clumsy, but at least all the information is presented. Maybe we could do something similar? :::*Galleries ::::Yes. :::*I18n template ::::Needs more information tbh. What the heck does it do? I read the entire suggestion page and couldn't figure it out. It just adds a link at the bottom that says "this page in French?" :::*Youtube and Screenshot links ::::Maybe. Youtube videos are often poor quality, and the comments are the worst on the web. I don't mind screenshots a whole bunch, but shouldn't we have relevant screenshots already uploaded to the wiki and linked? :::*Face and hair galleries ::::Waste of time. You can log on, and in seconds be viewing the in-game gallery. You can't do that with weapons or armor, which is why those galleries are a more feasible project. :::*Trade namespace ::::I like it. Before it's implemented, I'd like to check with Wikia and see if we could get trade-section-only sysops coded in, so we could get a little more help in the probably-busy section without recruiting full-time admins. :::*Mouseover on skill icons ::::Would be nice. Isn't necessary. Would require most people to rewrite their build code (the skill bar template) to the bbcode format. :::*R14 fame watch ::::Nice idea. Silly people on talk page. "Besides, who are they?" won that thread. -Auron 08:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC) :::::My guild said, "what would keep our r14s from lying about their fame?" lol. Also, if you are gonna make those redirects from the british names (i guess cause you read the cracked (i wrote cracker by mistake lol) armoUr article) you should add something to GW:REDIRECT about it. i dont mind it except that i am trying to encourage teh british to l2 spell. ya ya?—[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 09:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC) ::::::Meh. I didn't see a single solid argument against allowing the redirects, and I'll be damned if the majority wins out with poor logic. -Auron 10:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC) (Reset indent) May I comment? * Navigation :At least you acknowledge there's a problem. *Youtube and Screenshot links :relevant screenshots - sure, everything there's a consensus about, i.e. that most find relevant, we should have. The proposal entails writing pointers to info fewer people would find relevant. Which is why many people believe it doesn't belong on the wiki then. *trade-section-only sysops :If you can't trust a trade section sysop to stay away from mainspace if he's told to, you can't trust him with the trade section either. *Mouseover on skill icons :doesn't require people to rewrite anything, we just change the template to output bbcode (or whatever's needed). --◄mendel► 15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC) ::No. *Navigation :I have no problems with navigating via the search bar. I'm capable of finding whatever I want on a wiki. I'm not acknowledging a problem as much as saying "stop whining and start making actual suggestions if you want to see it 'fixed.'" *Youtube etc :If it doesn't belong on the wiki, we wouldn't be linking to these videos from mainspace articles either. A horse, by any other name, is still a horse. (IMO, use the article's talk page for not directly relevant but potentially useful information). *trade-section-only sysops :Trust isn't the issue. We have wiki-wide sysops already, but they might not want to deal with that section; much like the builds back in the day, just because it's there doesn't mean the admins care enough to devote their time to it. :So we promote people to mod the section that *do* care about the section. It doesn't have to be very many people. Two or three plus the sysops we already have would be plenty. And lastly, there are people would who be great trade section mods who would fail at sys oping for the entire wiki. -Auron 00:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC) ::I should've been more clear about the trade admins. My opinion is that we don't need wikia to "code them in", just be clear about what their job is to be. --◄mendel► 06:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC) so i herd your "Real name" is Eloc. Brr. (T/ ) 05:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC) :Yeah, I changed it to that after eloc went around spamming people's RL names on their talk pages. -Auron 06:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC) ::I must have missed that, or do you mean on GWW? In any case, ":D" (T/ ) 06:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC) :::Yeah, GWW. -Auron 07:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC) :::: so i herd u liek babeh eating. box I love your box. Do you mind if I use it? --Shadowcrest 01:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC) :I don't mind, but the guy who made it is User:Tycn. I had a contest on PvX for that kind of banner and his design won out. -Auron 06:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC) ::I like your box too, Auron. I wanna put my Onyx Scepter in it. —[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 07:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)